Uriel, and Achas, of the order of Principalities: thefe being the names the nuns were taught to give to the imaginary fpirits by which they pretended to be poffeffed. At Grandier's execution, a large fly was keen to buzz about his head: and, fome of his enemies having learning enough to know that Beelzebub fignifies the Prince of Flies, it was immediately given out, and believed, that Beelzebub was come for the foul of the malefactor, in order to carry it directly into hell. Gabriel Naude, a man of eminence in the last century, wrote a learned treatise, which he called, An apology for the great men that have been accused of magick. In this work he defends all the heroes of learn ing that had lain under this imputation, from Zoroafter down to his own time; proving, that fome of them were only politicians, others mathematicians, and others again eminent in various fciences above the reach of the vulgar. Our own Friar Bacon comes in among the reft; and perhaps never was there a greater inftance of the effect of prejudice, not on the populace only, but on perfons of the firft rank, than in his particular. Apuleius, one of the perfons defended, wrote an apology for himself on the fame account; which is yet remaining. He is of opinion, that the accufers on fuch occafions do not believe their own charge. This, I take it, will hold true with regard to fuch men as Card. Richelieu, or the profecuting Minifters in New England: but the wickedness of the intelligent will always influence the weakness of the ignorant; which explains my first propoition, That the belief of magick is not like to be entirely rooted out from among the vulgar, while there are perfons of better understanding that find an intereft in popular delufion.- I am, &'c. PHILODEMOS. and often has, brought on the exercife of it.-I write not against any particular man, but against a power affumed, I apprehend, not given; founded on conveniency, unfupported by right; dangerous to the people, unprofitable to the prince, ever liable to abufe, never fubmitting to controul: A power, of which the most gentle exercise is cruel; its tender mercies, fevere; and, in its most favourable treatment, leaving the perfon it attacks, as the storm does the fhip-wrecked wretch, naked, ftripped, fhivering on the comfortless beach, and only not drowned. The liberty of the prefs is the term, when applied to political writing, by which people generally understand the freedom of publifhing one's thoughts concerning publick matters and characters. If this freedom is confined to panegyrick alone, or fimple narratives of indifferent facts, then the freedom of the prefs is no greater here, than under the moft arbitrary governments; where the prefs may, in that sense, be faid to be free. Ifit may exceed those bounds, and proceed to examinations, animad-verfion, and cenfure, with impunity, the prefs may then be faid to be free. But if, in thofe cafes, the author, printer, or publisher, is liable to punishment, the press can no more be said to be free, than a man can be faid to be free to break another man's head because his hands are at liberty. The extent of the freedom of writing has no where, by law, been defined or fettled; therefore, if the difcretion of an author fhould exceed the patience of the mrs, as the law now ftands, the former writes with a halter about his neck, and muft either purge his writings of all fpirit, or confine them to approbation and panegyrick. The abuse of the prefs is of two forts. One amounts to treafon.-There must be a discretionary power vested in all government, ne quid detrimenti refpublica caperet. But then this power ought never to be exercifed, but in cafes of apparent neceffity and imminent danger. In fuch cafes, even property itself ceafes, and pofitive inftitu founded on felf-evident neceffity. Befides, this abuse of the prefs may be of fuch a nature, as to require no deliberation in E pro pronouncing it to be treafon : for inftance, fhould his Majefty's right to the crown be impeached, or the pretender's claim defended; and a multitude of other cafes. But these are overt acts of treafon; they are cognofcible by any Juftice of Peace as fuch; and differ in no refpect from the cafe of a man who fhould proclaim the pretender at Charing-crofs. Therefore I throw this abufe of the prefs out of the prefent question. The abuse I shall now confider is that which amounts to a bare breach of the peace. There is no medium betwixt treafon and breach of the peace; the law knows of none; and therefore the reader, in this difquifition, is to look upon a libel as no other than a breach of the peace; nor is he to confider the libeller in any other light, than that of a person who has gone farther with his hands or his tongue than the laws admit of, or rather than a jury of his peers thinks confiftent with the peace of fociety. As the law then is extremely exprefs with regard to the nature of the offence, it confequently has pointed out the method in which it is to be proceeded againft: I mean, after the matter is found to be libelLoas. But here arifes a previous queftion with regard to libels, of a very difficult and delicate nature, and which establishes a very material difference betwixt the notoriety of this breach of the peace and that of any other. In other breaches of the peace, a magiftrate is only to confider, whether the fact complained of, amounts to that charge; for the oath of fome other party fixes the perfon. But, in the cafe of a libel, if the libeller be not extremely uncautious, or the magiftrate very difcerning, the latter will find himself exceedingly puzzled how to fix either the offence or the perfon. Before he can proceed upon the offence, he must be clear that the matter is libellous; which is of ten no eafy matter: and, before he can proceed against the perfon, the author muft be fixed upon by the oath of another party. Let us now examine the common method of proceeding against libellers, or rather fuch as are fulpected of being the authors, printers, or publishers, of what is fuspected to be a libel; for this is generally, Af not always, the cafe. In this cafe, the fuppofed offenders not proceeded against as being guilty breach of the peace, which is, by law, nature of their offence; but in a mar which the laws of England know noth of Siffues a war of. The S to feize the perfon of the author, &c. b him before him with his papers, &c. I warrant is directed to two or more of Majefty's meffengers; who are ther required to take to their affiftance an ficer of the peace. The nature of this w rants admits of many observations. the first place, It is neither expreffed the warrant, that the information agai the supposed offender, is upon oath, s that any oath is made by which the I per is fworn to amount to a libel. In t next place, There is no fpecification, the faid warrant, of the paper for whi he is to be feized by the meffengers. La ly, It is directed to perfons who certai ly are no legal goalers, and by an ficer who, as S of S-, may be officer of flate, but is no officer of lau as all the right he has for iffuing fuch warrant is derived from his being a J ftice of Peace. As no oath therefore is mentioned this warrant, is it not evident that it in the power of a S―y to feize any ma alive, as being the author of the most v rulent libel? Nay, fhould it be no libe and yet he grant his warrant for feizin the fuppofed author, what law can fa him Nay? Is not here a plain, a ready and a fafe method for a mr to depriv any perfon of his liberty? If it has been if it may be practifed indifferently upo the innocent as the guilty; if pretended fufpicion alone is fufficient (as I have heard fuggefted) to warrant fuch a feizure what man is fafe? None; no privilege car be pleaded against a breach of the peace. The fecond obfervation I have made, relates to an abuse still of a more dange rous nature. The meffengers employed, no fooner feize the perfon the warrant is iffued againft, than they fearch his pockets for papers; they then demand all his keys, and to be admitted into every place where they can fuppofe he keeps any papers. All are ranfacked; the most fecret accounts are fubject to the eyes of thofe portunity of vindicating himself; he has not time allowed him before-hand, of fettling any of his private affairs; a circumftance which may one day be a man's thole bonourable inquifitors; they are at Liberty to feize what they pleafe, none can controul them: the prifoner has no right to interpofe; nor is even a witnefs of their proceeding admitted into the room, ruin. All his most fecret transactions are excepting the officer of the peace; who, if the warrant is illegal, becomes particeps ominis; nor is the prifoner, but by their fpecial favour, admitted even to a fight of his papers before they are feized. But the power of the inquifitors does not stop at the person of the prifoner; for his wife and fervants are fubject to the like examination; they are rifled of their keys: all the cabinets, boxes, clofets, &c. in the family, are fubject to the like fcrutiny; and to the mercy of the inquifitors; who are all this time in full poffeffion of the house, with the key of the ftreet door, and all the other keys belonging to the family, in their pockets. By these means they are made the abfolute mafters, not only of the liberty, but the property of their unhappy prifoner; who, for all this time, for ought that appears against him, may be innocent of all that is laid to his charge; and is perhaps become unhappy, only because the tool of a m-r takes it in his head that he is guilty. This is a condition infinitely more miferable than any that can happen to any man, even under the most arbitrary governments. In France, even when the lettres de cachet were in their utmost force, the perfon of the party was indeed fecured; but the officers who put him under arreft, had no power to rifle his houfe or his lodgings; they had no power to examine even his pockets, or to feize upon any thing but his perfon. Even where the inquifition prevails, an information muft be given upon oath against the prifoner: nor is the power of granting a warrant upon an information in the breast of an inquifitor, but of a board, where the accused party has the chance of one honeft man, who may put a stop to his profecution, if the crime charged upon him fhould appear to be either fictitious, or the accufation malicious. But here there is no need of an information; fufpicion is fufficient for granting a warrant; there is no fummons to appear before any magiArate, that the fufpected may have an op open to the eyes of the meffengers; there is no writing fo important, there is no paper fo valuable, that they may not feize, and no repofitory fo private that they may not ranfack, without_being fubject to controul or account. Is this proceeding agreeable to the nature of the offence, which we have already feen to amount to no more than a breach of the peace? Is it agreeable to equity, when the prifoner may have never fo much as heard of the papers with which he is charged? Is it agreeable to common humanity, fince difhonefty or malice in the meffengers, who fometimes are men who have been the favourite valets or footmen of some minifter, or dependent of a minifter, may ruin, not only the unhappy prifoner, who is in their clutches, and his family, but every perfon with whom he has any connexions, either of interest or friendship, by carrying off papers of the laft importance to their common affairs? Such a proceeding may indeed be justifiable in cafes of a confpiracy, a plot, or treasonable correfpondencies, where fuch evidences have already come to light as fixes fome degree of guilt upon a perfon. In such cases, it may be necessary to seize papers, in order to get intelligence how to prevent the treafon, or to punish the traitor. But, in the cafe of a libel, the mifdemeanour ftands upon itself, independent of any other fact. It must be tried, whether the paper complained of amounts to a libel. This can be done no otherwife than by the jury taking the averments and the tendency of the paper into their confideration; nor can any difcovery of other papers, in any degree influence their judgment in the trial. We therefore may well call fuch a proceeding as I have described, an unconstitutional exercife of power, fince it may greatly diftrefs, if not ruin the object of m-1 refentment, but never can bring to light any proofs of his guilt with regard to the paper complained of; which, as I have faid, muft be confidered by a jury, independent of E 2 every every other circumftance of guilt, even fuppofing the perfon to have been guilty of any, and that it is discoverable by his papers. The laft obfervation, with regard to the English lettre de cachet, is, That it is directed to officers who are not legal goalers, and by an officer who, as a S, may be an officer of ftate, but is no officer of law; as all the right he has for iffuing fuch a warrant is derived from his being a Juftice of the Peace. The laws of England, I will venture to fay, know of no fuch goal, as the house or lodging of a meffenger of ftate; and of no power which is vefted in a meffenger of ftate, to lay hold of, or detain any free-born fubject of Eng land. In cafes of felony and treafon, perhaps they may have fuch a power; but then fo has every fubject in G. Britain, and there have not been wanting cafes wherein this great point has been determined in favour of the fubject. UNIVERSAL SPECTATOR, Jan. 26. AN apology for bypocrify would seem a very odd title to a moral effay; and yet, odd as it might feem, I know not whether fuch an apology might not be compofed for fome characters, and for a certain degree only of this vice, upon morat principles. Upon principles of prudence, I am fure, it might; and prudence, by our ethick anatomiffs, is reckoned the first of the four cardinal virtues. It is much better, not to commit a bad aЯtion, and to avoid even the reproach of our own confcience, than to be mafter enough of prudence to conceal our faults when committed. Tho' this be an indifputable truth, it will be alfo found true, that, where a man has not yet attained the perfection of fubduing his paffions, and is unavoidably thrown by education or for tune into a fituation that requires him to be exemplary, it behoves him at leaft to cover what he has not corrected, that his weakness may not be made either a plea or an objection by others. And this farther good confequence may poffiby refult from his prudential refraint, that, as he finds the real practice of virtue not more painful, tho' infinitely more fatisfactory, than the appearance of being virtuous, e ven intereft may at last induce him to chuf the former. A wife parent will conceal from his for a wife mafter from his fervant, those foi bles which put them too much upon a le vel with themfelves, and confequently de tract from the deference expected to fuperior perfons. A clergyman who feels himfelf not yet fanctified, fhould at least endeavour not to appear abandoned. Kings, we well know, are not more virtuous than other men: but it concerns them, if they would govern a virtuous people, to conceal their own vices, and affect at least a regard for religion and morality. The author of the Effay on man knew human nature too well to fuppofe, that a crown or a cowl, an apron or a gown, did of them felves conftitute any difference in the inward habit; and therefore he makes the distinction of characters to ly between wisdom and folly, and the greatest human excellence to confift in ACTING WELL OUR PART. You'll find, if once the Monarch acts the Monk, Or, cobler-like, the Parfon will be drunk, Worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow; The reft is all but leather and prunella. The late K. William was not perhaps a better man than fome of his predeceffors, even in thofe very refpects wherein fuch of his predeceffors had rendered themselves contemptible. We know that he had his favourites, that no man was more partial to favourites than he, and that among these there was at least one Lady. Yet this monarch always kept on a grave appearance, was private in his vices, and fo had the general character, with most people, of not being vitious. His very court, tho' partly compofed of the fame men, had quite another character than the courts of his uncle and father-in-law; who were one of them openly lafcivious, the other, openly an enemy to the established religion of his country. I once heard a vifitation-fermon, wherein the honeft country-priest took for his text these words: The fcribes and Pharifees fit in Mofes's feat all therefore that they bid you obferve, that obferve and do but do not ye after their works; for they fay, and 12 and do not. And a very good difcourfe I remember he made to his brethren, the clergy then affembled, upon the neceffity they were under of exhibiting good examples to their people, who were too apt, when admonished, to retort upon them this reproach, Ye fay, and do not. There are a great many liberties, innotent in themselves, and equally innocent in clergymen as in other perfons, which however thefe ought not publickly to take, if they fufpect any of their pious hearers, of lefs understanding, may not think them becoming their character. I do not fay a clergyman ought not to take them, if he can do it without giving an occafion to fumble; but, unless that can be, he ought rather to abflain, than hurt the peace of another: which I take to be the fenfe of St Paul's rule, when he talks of his great care not to offend a weak brother in things indifferent. And of this kind is the bypocrify for which I would apologize. I have known a country Gentleman of the cloth, whofe fervent preaching and regular example had an influence on all his parishioners, who confifted of plain fimple people and yet he thought it no crime. to come up to town once or twice a-year, to live among his friends in a fomewhat more free, tho' ftill innocent manner, than he would do at home, or even than at home he could find companions to taste and enjoy TE with him. Literary matters, the theatre, politicks, all of them things he never mentioned in his parish, he thought very good fubjects to recreate with for a week or fortnight. A Chaplain in the fleet or army, while upon duty, is generally thought intitled to more liberty in converfation than another clergyman, that he may adapt himself to the company he is obliged to be among. But, befides that I fee no reason why officers, who are ufually Gentlemen both by land and fea, fhould be prefumed to be of worse manners than other men of the fame fenfe and education; I think, that, if this preJumption might have place, he who takes upon him the care of their fouls, ought to be a man the more void of reproach, that be might both by precept and example be an authoritative check upon their behaviour. I have heard a story of some diftinguished Bishop, Sir William Dawes I be lieve, that going a-crofs the parade in St James's park, when a party of the guards were under arms, he obferved the officer who exercised them to fwear extravagantly: whereupon, going up to him, "Sir, faid he, I am no foldier, and therefore can not tell how far oaths are a neceffary qualification in that character: but, if you can do your business without fwearing, let me intreat you to refrain." The reproof, it is faid, had its immediate effect. Cornelio was a man of great wit, but at the fame time of most vitious inclinations. Fortune threw him into the church, and his genius foon got him a domeftick chaplainship to a Noble family. The Lord was an exceeding good and pious man; he had even wrote in defence of religion; and, as Cornelio had hitherto kept on the vail, his Lordship looked upon him to be equally religious and ingenious. But his Lordship's fons quickly found the contrary, Cornelio readily joining with them in their night debauches, whenever they could do it without the father's knowledge. In the old man's fight he was a very faint, and with the young men an arrant rake. At last, the mere mask of piety grew too painful for him to wear: Cornelio came to town, became a professed debauchee, and, partly thro' his wickedness, partly thro' his wit, was admitted into the gayeft company of first character. He had given over all thoughts of preferment in the church; but, as he found his converfation agreeable, he thought a chaplainfhip to one of the Noble rakes, who had admitted him. into their confort, might be still at his command. The Lord he pitched upon was nominated Ambassador to a foreign ftate; whereupon Cornelio made his immediate application. "I am very forry, Neli, fays his Lordship, that I cannot oblige you, because you are a very pleasant fellow: but, faith, you are not wicked enough; you want one neceffary vice to qualify you for my fervice in this capacity."A vice, my Lord! quoth Neli with furprize; what can that be? I thought I had poffeffed all the vices in general." There you were mistaken then, replied the Peer; you want HYPOCRISY to conceal the reft." If Cornelio wanted this vice, (which in |